Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: THE COLD WAR QUIZLET
On October 3rd, 2002, Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone walked unto the Senate floor to give what would be one of the most momentous speeches of his career. A day prior, a resolution authorizing the President to invade Iraq, supported by the George W. Bush Administration, had been introduced. Wellstone, a progressive Democrat noted for his strong anti-war views, opposed the resolution. At the time, however, he was struggling to win reelection, and a vote against the popular resolution could push voters to support his opponent. Yet instead of joining the bipartisan chorus for war with Iraq and abandoning his beliefs, Wellstone chose to stand as a “monument of individual conscience” and raise his concerns about military intervention (Kennedy 223). Wellstone had been a vigorous opponent of war since joining the Senate in 1991. He raised eyebrows and angered veterans’ groups in his first term by holding an anti-war press conference near the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (Berke), even earning an expletive from President George H.W. Bush after using a formal White House function to ask the President not to invade Iraq in 1991 (Lofy 68). However, voters’ tolerance for Wellstone’s anti-war stance changed in the …show more content…
On October 2nd, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution was introduced. Known informally as the “Iraq Resolution,” it allowed the President to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq” through invasion (United States Cong. 1501). The Resolution went wholly against Wellstone’s principles, as Coleman was attacking him on the national security issue, it would be politically beneficial for him to “abandon or subdue his conscience” and support it (Kennedy
On October 3rd, 2002, Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone walked unto the Senate floor to give what would be one of the most momentous speeches of his career. A day prior, the Senate leadership had introduced a resolution, backed by the George W. Bush Administration, to authorize the President to attack Iraq. Wellstone, a progressive Democrat, had long been noted for his strong anti-war views. However, he was at the time struggling to win reelection, and a vote against the popular resolution could sway the election in his opponent’s favor. Yet instead of joining the bipartisan chorus for war with Iraq and abandoning his anti-war convictions, Wellstone chose to stand as a “monument of individual courage” and raise his concerns about the direction of American foreign policy (Kennedy 223).
Less than one week after the devastating terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S.A. Patriot Act was introduced to Congress. One month later, the act passed in the Senate with a vote of 98-1. A frightened nation had cried for protection against further attacks, but certainly got more than they had asked for. Russell Feingold, the only Senator to vote down the act, referred to it as, “legislation on the fly, unlike anything [he] had ever seen.” In their haste to protect our great nation, Congress suspended, “normal procedural processes, such as interagency review and committee hearings,” and, “many provisions were not checked for their constitutionality, lack of judicial oversight, and potential for abuse.” Ninety-eight senators were willing to overlook key civil liberty issues contained within the 342 page act. The lone dissenting vote, Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold, felt that our battle against terrorism would be lost “without firing a shot” if we were to “sacrifice the liberties of the American people.” Feingold duly defended American civil liberties at the risk of his career, truly exemplifying political courage as defined by John F. Kennedy.
September 11, 2001 marked a tragic day in the history of the United States; a terrorist attack had left the country shaken. It did not take long to determine those who were behind the attack and a call for retribution swept through the nation. Citizens in a wave of patriotism signed up for military service and the United States found resounding international support for their efforts in the war on terror. Little opposition was raised at the removal of the Taliban regime and there was much support for bringing Osama Bin Laden and the leaders of al-Qaeda to justice. Approval abroad diminished approximately a year and a half later when Afghanistan became a stepping stone to the administration’s larger ambition, the invasion of Iraq. The administration would invent several stories and in some cases remain silent of the truth where would prove positive for the Iraqi invasion. It seems they were willing to say anything to promote the largely unpopular and unnecessary war they were resolved on engaging in.
Claremont Education. 18 May 2006. . War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance? 14 February 2006 -. Congressional Research Service Reports -.
In order to fulfill these obligations, Congress uses a number of techniques to check the executive branch. One technique is the usage of committee hearings and investigations. In the mid to late 1960s, for example, Senator J. William Fulbright organized Senate hearings which mobilized opposition to the Vietnam War. Consequently, the Gulf Tonkin Resolution, which gave the president the power to authorize usage of “conv...
Since the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration has been calling every citizens and every nations to support his Middle East policy. Nonetheless, the U.S. has been involved in the middle-east struggle for more than half of the century, wars were waged and citizens were killed. Yet, political struggles and ideological conflicts are now worse than they were under Clinton’s presidency. As “President’s Address to the Nation” is a speech asking everybody to support the troops to keep fighting in Iraq, I, as an audience, am not persuaded at all because of his illogical fallacy in the arguments. In this essay, I will analyze how and what are the illogical fallacies he uses in the speech.
Denise Grady’s (2006) article sound a strong wake up call for the American government and for the American public to re-evaluate their guiding principles towards war in Iraq and the continued presence of the American soldiers in the Iraqi soil. Grady delineated the enormous damages the war had costs in not only monetary terms but also the future of thousands of promising young and talented men and women sent in the Iraq War; that had no clear benefits to them or the American people.
The purpose of Clinton’s public rhetoric is to win the support of the American people, relative to the Republicans and the Independent Counsel. The support of the people will ensure the eventual cooperation of the House and Senate–who are directly responsible to the public for their jobs. Because Clinton is speaking to a broad and...
Grimmett, Richard F.“The War Powers Resolution: After 30 Years.” CRS Report for Congress. March 11, 2004. https://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32267.html.
Going it to war is one of the hardest decisions a president may have to make but they cannot do it alone. They must have the support of the American people. Entering into war is not one most Americans agree to do without hesitation. War is associated with destruction, violence, and death. With so many opposed what appeals and approaches does a president use to “sell” a war to the American people? To answer this question we will look at 3 documents from Franklin D Roosevelts presented throughout the timeline of the war and how his “sales pitch” changed along the way.
Starting with the economic collapse that preceded World War II, Heller describes how profit driven America acts in self-interest, avoiding danger and risk at a much higher clip than their allies. While in the Air Force, Doc Daneeka does not uphold his agreement to the Hippocratic oath: “to remember that he has “special obligations to all fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm” (Hippocratic Oath). The inherent nobility and altruism normally associated with a soldier or a physician is nowhere to be found in Doc Daneeka. Today, in schools and textbooks, the American people laud the United States Armed Forces and government for its honorable motive and deliberate course of action during World War II. Heller views Doc Daneeka and America in the same vein: the altruistic nobility of their perceived positions is misrepresentative and overstated. When asked about World War II, Harry Truman once said, “If you can’t convince them, confuse them” (Truman, 1945). In Catch-22, Joseph Heller masterfully found a way to accomplish
Throughout history leaders of nations worldwide have utilized different methods of persuasion to try and influence peoples’ thinking or justify their actions. The way a leader addresses a nation is crucial in times of war, hardship, or traumatic events and this may play a role on the outlook of the people. The terrorist attacks that took place on September 11, 2001 prompted two U.S. Presidents, George Bush and Barack Obama, to take steps that were meant to protect the American people and U.S allies. Both Presidents waged war, which so far has spanned three presidential terms, on people who were thought to be terrorists and many lives were lost. The purpose of this blog is to examine the methods of persuasion used by both Presidents in their effort to justify their actions and the ongoing need for U.S troops in the Middle East.
Hudson, William E. American Democracy in Peril: Eight Challenges to America’s Future – Fourth Edition. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2004.
Stonecipher, Harry C. A Place to stand. 21 Debated Issues in American Politics. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2000.
David Rothkopf uses logical and ethical appeals to bring awareness to the American society about the effects of Washington’s past mistakes on The United States. Many years ago, the intended result of war was to do great things. The space program was created as well as the highway system and the internet. Needless to say, times have changed. Washington's executive branch hasn’t made the finest decisions over the past few years. Fear has been put into the minds of America’s political leaders, and fear can lead to bad decision making. An example of bad decision making is the Iraq War and Afghanistan War. The attacks of 9/11 introduced fear to the American government. Resulting from this fear was the thought that everybody had become a